"The driver told his insurance he "wasn't moving at impact"

[glenn forger]

If prof pointy thinks it's sensible to enter a main road without flipping looking where you're going it's pretty scary.

 

[benb]

[QUOTE 3472274, member: 9609"]I agree with your first bit entirely, and technically the collision is the fault of the driver (that is why the insurance will have paid out) but a careful considerate cyclist would have easily avoided this, we all have to look out for each other on the road and we need to make allowances for other peoples mistakes - for me this cyclist was just hammering along with no thoughts in his head.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I said that the cyclist probably could have avoided it, but that doesn't excuse the driver in any way at all. I don't like the implication that the cyclist was to blame for the collision.

I know someone who left their back door open and got burgled.
Was it their fault they got burgled? Does the fact the door was open reduce the culpability of the burglar?

 

[glenn forger]

The driver was pulling out into the main road while thinking about punching kittens.

 

[Origamist]

[QUOTE 3472274, member: 9609"]I agree with your first bit entirely, and technically the collision is the fault of the driver (that is why the insurance will have paid out) but a careful considerate cyclist would have easily avoided this, we all have to look out for each other on the road and we need to make allowances for other peoples mistakes - for me this cyclist was just hammering along with no thoughts in his head.[/QUOTE]

It is clear that the cyclist had slowed significantly before the impact (i.e. he was not "hammering along"), otherwise he would have been bonnet surfing.

If you're going to try to make allowances for every driver who could potentially emerge from a junction you're simply going to have to stop every few hundred meters and hope you don't get hit from behind.

 

[glenn forger]

Yep, and then the driver who hits you from behind will blame you for slowing.

 

[Drago]

The cyclist was riding like a penis and then commits a S4.A POA offence against the car driver. I've little sympathy with someone who will fully puts themselves in a position where a car driver can do that to them.

What's the old adage? Ride as if every other road user is trying to kill you.

The car driver is at fault, but the collision could have so easily been avoided in the first place. Being alive and your bike undamaged is much better than being righteous but in hospital.

 

[Turbo Rider]

Driver doesn't seem to give way at all. Road looks a bit wet, so braking may have been affected for cyclist. Cyclist gets a bit lairy, but heads for the cars path rather than trying to avoid it. Cyclist stops before collision. Driver drives into him. Cyclist loses the plot more than he already has. Cyclist is technically correct, but a bit of a nob. Driver made a mistake and then lied, so is also a nob. Like attracts like, defined.

 

[DWiggy]

The cyclist could clearly see the car was posing a threat to him from a long way back and should have adjusted his speed/position accordingly, as for the damage to his bike it could have happened when he chucked it on the ground! and his behaviour was just appalling...calm the fook down!

 

[glenn forger]

It's lucky that drivers never express their displeasure at cyclists going slowly.

 

[winjim]

Interesting article regarding this type of situation.

http://thecyclingsolicitor.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-legal-position-where-cyclist-is.html?m=1

 

[Drago]

To be fair, if the driver had been frightened by the verbal onslaught unleashed by the cyclist and driven off in fear, running over the bicycle as they did so, I'm not sure the cyclist would have any case against the driver, either criminal or civil.

Or even worse if the driver had twatted him and claimed he was frightened he was about the be assaulted and made a pre-emptive strike to prevent such an assault the cyclist would be stuffed.

Or worse still, if the driver were some Phil Mitchell type and just got out the car and kicked the sheet out of him he'd be in real bother.

I've seen all the scenarios played out above many times. Yawping off, no matter how angry or righteous they may feel, can so often escalate the situation and bring about an ending they hadn't anticipated.

 

[glenn forger]

I'll pay fifty quid to the Bent Coppers Retired in Spain Fund if you can find a single example of a driver getting out of his car to assault a cyclist who was found not guilty. You've seen it "many, many times", one example will do.

 

[Drago]

Had one year before last, one of my last jobs before I moved to CID. The car driver was built like giant haystack, absolutely dwarfed me, and with one punch put the teeth down the cyclists throat, knocked him out and left him covered in abrasions where he hit the floor. The driver went guilty in court, but claimed the mitigation that he thought the cyclist was about to lump him and walked away with a Court issues caution. The cyclist was stretchers away needing hundreds in dental work.

When you've spent 18 years in roads policing, and 6 of those specialising in incidents involving cyclists you'll have seen plenty of road rage, and rarely does the person starting it walk away the victor in any sense of the word. I've seen guys put fists through car window glass and punch drivers in one fluid movement. Overseen drivers take baseball bats and knives to their antagonists. I dealt with one where the driver was shot.

Before getting into a confrontation just think Kenneth Noye. There is always someone out there more willing than you to use violence, less inhibited than you about the levels of violence they will use. Anyone who yawps off like the cyclist in the video is quite simply an idiot.

 

[glenn forger]

Verifiable report, obviously.

 

[Hip Priest]

Verifiable report, obviously.

If you aren't going to accept the answer, then don't ask.